For the past two years, most every ever green post has had an insight into how life can be made more eco-friendly. But just because I incorporate helping the environment into my everyday life doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else thinks it helps them, too.

Reusable bags:
I've written about and taken pictures of the scourge of plastic bags. Americans use billions of these bags every year and are adding to the plastic litter on the streets, in the landfills, and floating around in the oceans. The antidote to plastic bag waste is simply saying no to the offered plastic bag and carrying your own reusable shopping bag.

I have a few canvas ones that I use regularly. But most cashiers and grocery baggers seemed confused when I tell them I don't need their plastic bag and whip out my own canvas ones. The grocery baggers usually step away and I end up packing my own bags. Cashiers at other stores just kind of stare blankly at me and instead of packing my item into my canvas bag, they let me do it. As of late I have noticed others with reusable bags or other shoppers who tell the cashiers that they don't need plastic bags. And maybe if the six-cent plastic-bag-tax becomes law in New York, more people will bring their own bags and shops will become more accustomed to people bringing their own.

Using green transportation:
One post described my shunning of even the bus or subway in favor of walking to work. But I needed a bike for a vacation, so I got a very used one from craigslist (that was within walking distance of picking up), and have been biking now for the past few months.

It seems that more people dislike bikers than any other form of transportation. When biking through Central Park, for example, dog walkers and tourists regularly step into the path of oncoming bikes with careless abandon and seem appalled when we nearly collide. I don't go that fast because my bike is beat-up and old, and I ride defensively, so the look of disdain on the faces of non-bikers when I pedal by is a mystery. I had one guy, who was walking his mini-dog, look me directly in the face while stepping into my path and deliberately slowing down, forcing me to either run him over or veer around him. Would these same people step into the path of a car or bus?

Another hazard of riding a bike is bad weather. When it rains or snows or ice-storms, riding a bike is tough. Most of the time if I hear a report of bad weather, I'll walk instead of bike. But sometimes there's no warning and I end up getting out of wherever I am and have to ride home on a wet seat and have tons of back spackle when I finally arrive. One time the back spackle reached all the way up to my helmet.

Long-lasting, energy-efficient lightbulbs:
I actually needed to replace some of the first-generation energy-efficient lightbulbs that I bought five or so years ago because they slowly got dimmer. One of the complaints about these bulbs is that they are not as bright as incandescents and get worse with age. The new ones I got are a brighter wattage and were cheaper than the old ones. But I'm not sure how to dispose of the old ones since there have been reports about hazardous materials in the bulb makeup.

keeping the earth ever green

Lisa Tae-Ran Schroeder

Forget the hybrid vehicle or even a bicycle; the most eco-friendly way to get to work is by your own two feet.

Transportation options for the environmentally inclined are fuel-efficient vehicles, bicycles, or public transportation.

The government even gives tax rebates to people who buy hybrid vehicles; but cars — no matter how environmentally friendly — still use gas.

Biking is pretty good for the environment; but you need a bike, a lock, a helmet, and a good sense of not being hit by crazy traffic.

But no one is advocating just walking to work. Granted most people don’t live close enough to be able to do this, unless they live in cities like New York. It’s a shame because walking is one of the nicest and most eco-friendly ways to get to work; I should know because that’s what I’ve been doing for over a year.

It takes me around 30 minutes to walk to work, and not being tethered to subway or bus is freedom.

I’ll answer some questions below about my experiences:

Why did you start walking?
I actually started walking because the public transportation fares were going up. I figured it takes almost the same amount of time to walk as it does to: get to the subway, wait for it, get out at the stop, and walk the rest of the way to the office. It’s also better for the environment, plus I get to enjoy nature along the way.

What about when the weather is bad?
I try to walk all the time, even if it’s cold, really hot, or even raining. Walking, especially when it’s raining, is really the quickest way, because sometimes the subways flood so the trains can get delayed. Sometimes when it’s really hot, I’ll go to the gym first which is fairly close to work, so I won’t arrive all sweaty.

What do you see on your walk?
I see lots of different people out and about. There are dog walkers, tourists, and sometime movie or television production people setting up. Sometimes I see interesting wildlife; I’ve seen a raccoon, falcons, a dead rat, and lots of pigeons. In the subway you only see live rats.

What’s the best thing about walking — and the worst?
The best thing is getting fresh air and knowing exactly when I’ll get to my destination. When I walk I never have to worry about if the train will get me there on time or exactly what time I’ll get there. Walking gives me the freedom to set my own time. The worst is when strange men make comments and get offended when I don’t respond, and also if the weather is bad.

What about when you get to work — do you walk up the stairs too?
I do very occasionally walk up the stairs. I figure taking the elevator at that point is something I deserve. But I do walk up and down the stairs of my apartment building.

keeping the earth ever green

Lisa Tae-Ran Schroeder

Every news outlet that is reporting from Beijing during the Olympics always has the same slice-of-life report about eating barbecued bugs on a stick. They only care about the ick factor, not about the eco-friendly nature or history of why Chinese would eat bugs in the first place.

The reporters are usually non-Asian reporters from Western countries and always go for the most disgusting-looking bug-skewer. But as usual these Western media reporters didn’t learn the history behind why these types of foods are eaten in China, nor do they delve into how eating these insects is much better for the environment than eating beef.

The Chinese province of Guangdong (also known as Canton) has an old saying: "Any animal, whose back faces sky, can be eaten." And Cantonese are known to eat everything, including snakes, snails, frogs, bugs, etc. But the real reason they started eating whatever was because when their crops failed, which happened often, they still had to eat. So if any of those reporters from NBC actually knew what it was like to starve and be so hungry they would even eat bugs, then maybe they could be justified in making fun of things like eating fried scorpions on a stick.

But there are other countries besides China, like Mexico and Southeast Asia, that have old cultural traditions that include eating insects; some were even considered delicacies only fit for royalty. Some of these countries are now encouraging poor people to raise insects as food, helping to lift them out of poverty. Insects are an ideal alternative to traditional protein sources, especially for developing countries because bugs are high in protein and easy to raise.

Eating insects helps save the environment because raising them has a much lower impact than raising stockyard animals.

From a previous ever green post: Eating meat worse for environment than driving or flying:

According to a United Nations report [Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options] published last November, animal agriculture emits more global-warming gases into the air than does transportation. And greenhouse gases aside, the report also shows how livestock degrade and pollute land and water sources.

This shows that rich first-world nations, such as the U.S., Europe, and Japan, directly cause environmental problems because of their high beef consumption.

So the Western media’s fascination with insect kabobs has just skimmed the surface of the reasons why those types of alternative foods are available over there. What would happen if Chinese came over to the U.S. and started making fun of how fat everyone is because they eat so much meat?

And another thing that the media hasn’t seemed to realize is that the markets that they got the skewers in were most likely in really touristy areas; so the bugs-on-a-stick could be just as touristy as getting your picture drawn in New York’s Times Square.

For more on eating insects in China, here’s a great clip from YouTube, where ethnic Asians from Hong Kong are breaking the stereotype that Asians actually enjoy eating bugs:

keeping the earth ever green

Lisa Tae-Ran Schroeder

There is no escape from the frenzy of Beijing Olympics coverage. And the one thing that all the American media can’t talk enough about is how polluted the city and/or country is.

There are daily haze reports, particulate meter readings, algae bloom cleanups, athletes arriving in the airport in masks, athletes training in other countries to only enter Beijing on the day of their event, etc.

China is polluted; there is no doubt about that. But the media coverage so far makes it seem like China is the only country at fault for polluting the Earth and ruining the environment.

All this pollution watch coverage doesn’t deflect from the fact the United States still is one of the top per capita carbon emitters on the planet. But the media seem to overlook this and none have mentioned this in any of their reports about China’s pollution.

China’s population is 1.3 billion people and growing; but each person’s carbon footprint is minimal compared to individual Americans. Most Americans own a car; sometimes a family owns more than one car. And most need to drive to get to work, or run errands, or even to get to spots where we can enjoy nature. We usually live in houses that consume a lot of energy from electronics like computers, flat-screen televisions, washing/drying machines, etc. A lot of rural Chinese don’t have electricity or large houses or cars. Those that live in cities usually live in apartments, which use less electricity than houses, and get around by public transportation or bicycle.

But the Chinese lifestyle and country has changed over the past decades. The opening up of the economy has lifted many of its citizens out of poverty but, in return, has turned them into consumers. Many of the nouveau-riche now want cars, electronics, and other things that make their lives more comfortable, but at the cost to their environment. But why should the media criticize the Chinese for wanting and creating lifestyles that are similar to Americans at the same financial levels yet not pointing out the polluting ways of ourselves?

Foreign companies moved into China to take advantage of cheap labor and thus are directly responsible for creating factories that spew out the pollution that everyone is so critical to the Chinese about. The Chinese government is to blame because they should have put regulations in place to control the levels of toxins emitted instead of just seeing dollar signs in their eyes. But the foreign companies, many of them American, are responsible too, yet they turn a blind eye and also see only profit margins and moneymaking ability.

The media needs to dig deeper in their China pollution coverage to uncover the unpopular truths about who really is to blame and is responsible for the unfortunate environmental problems that China is dealing with now.

They would find that their coverage is hypocritical and irresponsible, especially considering all the airplane rides and energy-consumption their Olympics coverage is using up.

keeping the earth ever green

Lisa Tae-Ran Schroeder